friend_listList a Steam user's friend list by SteamID64; optionally filter by relationship type (friend or all). Returns array of SteamID64s and relationship status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steamid | Yes | ||
| relationship | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| friendslist | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return format (array of SteamID64s and relationship status) and the filtering behavior, which go beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the optional filter, then the return type. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the operation, parameters, filtering, and return value. It provides all necessary context to invoke the tool correctly without needing pagination or error details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With no schema descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates by explaining both parameters: steamid is a SteamID64 and relationship filters to 'friend' or 'all'. It leans on the description for semantics but doesn't detail the exact format of SteamID64 beyond the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists a Steam user's friend list by SteamID64, with optional relationship filtering. The verb 'List' plus the specific resource 'friend list' and the return of SteamID64s and relationship status distinguish it from sibling tools like player_summaries or resolve_vanity_url.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies clear usage: when you need a Steam user's friends, pass a SteamID64 and optionally filter by relationship. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and aligns with only this tool among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, while deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve meta/onboarding purposes. The Steam-specific tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by a large unrelated set (Polymarket, Pipeworx, npm scanning) that makes selection confusing.
Tool names follow no single convention: some are verb_noun (resolve_vanity_url, generate_llms_txt), some are noun-only (app_details, player_stats), and others use domain prefixes inconsistently (polymarket_arbitrage, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). The mix of descriptive and vague names (process, run, execute) adds to the inconsistency.
At 45 tools, the server is heavily overloaded, especially for a server named 'Steam' where only about a third of the tools actually relate to Steam. The rest belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and other unrelated domains, making the scope unclear and the tool count far too large for a focused purpose.
For the Steam domain, the server covers a reasonable range: app details/news, player counts, friends, owned games, achievements, stats, bans, levels, and summaries. However, notable gaps exist such as store search, reviews, wishlist, or any user inventory/trading features. The non-Steam tools add breadth but do not address these missing Steam operations.